(08-08-2012 01:55 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote: Hi. It would depend on your views on the Bible. Liberal scholars nowadays have plenty arguments why it is "compatible". Their apparent assumption is that science is truth and as the Bible is the Word of God, we must understand the Bible in terms of what is "scientifically" proven.
We have a number of problems: The Bible is for instance clear on creation itself and more specifically a six-day creation (even top non-Christian Hebrew scholars agree that the proper interpretation of the text does not allow for a different interpretation). This is totally in opposition to evolution that needs many millions of years to make "everything possible"
Creation itself - evolution accepts that life could originate from inorganic matter. This has never happened in even the most complex experiments. They had to use parts of a living cell to get some form of "life". This fact is even implied by Dawkins when he suggests (excuse if I smile, coming from a highly intelligent man such a Dawkins) that life was "seeded" on to earth by some very clever "aliens". Where they come from poses the same question - where did they come from.
The Bible clearly states that animals etc were made each after its own "kind". Despite bacteria adapting (such as that associated with HIV/Aids), they remain bacteria and do not change into anything else.
With reference to my previous post and lies, I am very skeptical of "science" and evolution as there are really too many proven lies (that I believe still find their way into textbooks) that contributes towards informed mistrust of information in this regard. (See i.e. Haeckel)

First of all, Evolution deals with HOW species came to be so diverse, not how LIFE originated.

Second. Micro Evolution is Macro on a smaller scale.

Third, Dawkins admitted it WAS a POSSIBILITY not that he BELIEVED IT.

Your ignorance is astounding.

How do you explain that we share D.N.A with all of the animals on earth? Of the fact that we have organs WE DON'T USE.

Either your God was unbelievebly RETARDED at creating those useless organs, or he didn't create them.

Your first assertion (First of all, Evolution deals with HOW species came to be so diverse, not how LIFE originated ) is easily refuted in an[url=(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...ife.shtml) ] article from the Berkeley university.“Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from”
You are correct, Dawkins suggests that it is a possibility – which do not discount the fact that he thinks it is a plausible answer – despite the total absence of evidence to support this.
But the argument is basically why I think evolution and the Bible is incompatible. Would you disagree then that the Bible and evolution are incompatible? Why?

(08-08-2012 01:44 AM)morondog Wrote: I will reply more fully later. For now: if my skepticism does not make the Bible false, you have to accept the counter proposition that your faith does not make it true

Hi. It would depend on your views on the Bible. Liberal scholars nowadays have plenty arguments why it is "compatible". Their apparent assumption is that science is truth and as the Bible is the Word of God, we must understand the Bible in terms of what is "scientifically" proven.
We have a number of problems: The Bible is for instance clear on creation itself and more specifically a six-day creation (even top non-Christian Hebrew scholars agree that the proper interpretation of the text does not allow for a different interpretation). This is totally in opposition to evolution that needs many millions of years to make "everything possible"
Creation itself - evolution accepts that life could originate from inorganic matter. This has never happened in even the most complex experiments. They had to use parts of a living cell to get some form of "life". This fact is even implied by Dawkins when he suggests (excuse if I smile, coming from a highly intelligent man such a Dawkins) that life was "seeded" on to earth by some very clever "aliens". Where they come from poses the same question - where did they come from.
The Bible clearly states that animals etc were made each after its own "kind". Despite bacteria adapting (such as that associated with HIV/Aids), they remain bacteria and do not change into anything else.
With reference to my previous post and lies, I am very skeptical of "science" and evolution as there are really too many proven lies (that I believe still find their way into textbooks) that contributes towards informed mistrust of information in this regard. (See i.e. Haeckel)

RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution

(08-08-2012 07:30 AM)kingschosen Wrote: Y'know... even if you are from AiG, I'll still play.

Before we can even get into the issue of evolution, you must first explain to me how you can reconcile Ancient Near East culture with a literal account of the Bible.

Who is AiG? I am a normal guy, attending Christ Church in Pinetown, South Africa.
This thread is not about the merits of evolution? It is whether you can honestly reconcile evolution with Scripture. Now it seems to me that you either have to agree with me that evolution cannot be reconciled with Scripture or "plead your case" that they are compatible.

RE: A Bunch of Smart as Shit Southern Baptists Trying to Reconcile Evolution

(08-08-2012 08:09 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote:

(08-08-2012 07:30 AM)kingschosen Wrote: Y'know... even if you are from AiG, I'll still play.

Before we can even get into the issue of evolution, you must first explain to me how you can reconcile Ancient Near East culture with a literal account of the Bible.

Who is AiG? I am a normal guy, attending Christ Church in Pinetown, South Africa.
This thread is not about the merits of evolution? It is whether you can honestly reconcile evolution with Scripture. Now it seems to me that you either have to agree with me that evolution cannot be reconciled with Scripture or "plead your case" that they are compatible.

Because before you can even start with the evolution, you have to first address the ANE culture aspect. If you can't reconcile the ANE aspect, then you saying that evolution is incompatible with scripture is moot.

Literal interpretations thinly veil holes that are patched up with mental gymnastics when it comes to science; however, when doing this, huge holes are ripped open on the history aspect of the texts.

ex:
the Akkadians, the hyperbolic nature of some of the stories, the exalted language, the shared stories, the lack of separation between history and myth, etc

(08-08-2012 07:48 AM)Logisch Wrote: Religion must change and adapt to survive, not surprised by this.

Yes, this is the position held by many. There is no problem with adapting in superficial stuff - we must sit in rows, with the pulpit in the center, with no pink flowers.
If however we start to "compromise" to suit "the world", it becomes a problem. A fairly obvious example could be the position towards homosexuals. There are a large number of Christian churches that do no longer frown upon gay marriages etc. So they adapt to become "acceptable". The position as stated in the Bible is that practicing homosexuality is a sin (even thoughts if you consider Jesus' statements about murder.) But what should our relationship towards homosexuals be? Not one of judgement and ostracism, as we are never encouraged to look down on anybody else, or regard yourself as better than them. The reason for this is obvious: We are all sinners and we become Christians by the grace of God and not because we are anything special.
Megachurches often pamper to the "flesh" to attract people in the name of "evangelism". This is false in my opinion. Pretending to be something which you are not (or not supposed to be) and "getting them in so we can bring the message of Christ to them" is not only "false advertising" but I would suggest basic disbelief in Christ and what He will and can do.

(08-08-2012 07:48 AM)Logisch Wrote: Religion must change and adapt to survive, not surprised by this.

Yes, this is the position held by many. There is no problem with adapting in superficial stuff - we must sit in rows, with the pulpit in the center, with no pink flowers.
If however we start to "compromise" to suit "the world", it becomes a problem. A fairly obvious example could be the position towards homosexuals. There are a large number of Christian churches that do no longer frown upon gay marriages etc. So they adapt to become "acceptable". The position as stated in the Bible is that practicing homosexuality is a sin (even thoughts if you consider Jesus' statements about murder.) But what should our relationship towards homosexuals be? Not one of judgement and ostracism, as we are never encouraged to look down on anybody else, or regard yourself as better than them. The reason for this is obvious: We are all sinners and we become Christians by the grace of God and not because we are anything special.
Megachurches often pamper to the "flesh" to attract people in the name of "evangelism". This is false in my opinion. Pretending to be something which you are not (or not supposed to be) and "getting them in so we can bring the message of Christ to them" is not only "false advertising" but I would suggest basic disbelief in Christ and what He will and can do.

If you would simply stop trusting the Bible for knowledge, morality, or ethics, the problems go away.

The Bible has been shown to be unreliable and contradictory, and much of it completely at odds with civilized behavior. Let go of the collection of stories from Bronze Age goat herders.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

(08-08-2012 07:48 AM)Logisch Wrote: Religion must change and adapt to survive, not surprised by this.

Yes, this is the position held by many. There is no problem with adapting in superficial stuff - we must sit in rows, with the pulpit in the center, with no pink flowers.
If however we start to "compromise" to suit "the world", it becomes a problem. A fairly obvious example could be the position towards homosexuals. There are a large number of Christian churches that do no longer frown upon gay marriages etc. So they adapt to become "acceptable". The position as stated in the Bible is that practicing homosexuality is a sin (even thoughts if you consider Jesus' statements about murder.) But what should our relationship towards homosexuals be? Not one of judgement and ostracism, as we are never encouraged to look down on anybody else, or regard yourself as better than them. The reason for this is obvious: We are all sinners and we become Christians by the grace of God and not because we are anything special.
Megachurches often pamper to the "flesh" to attract people in the name of "evangelism". This is false in my opinion. Pretending to be something which you are not (or not supposed to be) and "getting them in so we can bring the message of Christ to them" is not only "false advertising" but I would suggest basic disbelief in Christ and what He will and can do.

Are you really going to allude to the "marriage is a religious institution" load of garbage that has been shovel-fed to the indoctrinated?

God recognizes marriage by His own standards. Not ours. No ceremony on Earth instantly makes God say, "Oh yeah, they're married now. K."

Marriage is a man made, cultural and ceremonial institution, hijacked by the church, then hijacked by the US government for tax purposes.

It has nothing to do with God or Christianity.

Denying gay people the right to marry is a very clear civil rights issue. Blatant bigotry, pure and simple. It's no different that black rights or women's suffrage.